SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

"Paul Bielec" wrote in message
...
Big Bill wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:28:35 -0500, Paul Bielec wrote:


Alice wrote:


http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml

Here is another, an amateur point of view.
The 300D was a real bargain when I bough it. The D70 was much more
expensive. Now the price dropped and it is definitively the best digital
camera for the price.
I don't own any expensive gear and I don't need it.
When I bought my 300D, I wanted a DSLR but I wasn't willing to spend
2000$ (Can) to buy one. The 300D and the used EOS 300, is an upgrade

from the Nikon F60 I used to have. I want to buy an Elan 7e/7ne

eventually. It is all I need.
Upgrading to 350D or 20D, for me, it would be a waste of money.
I'll upgrade in few years when the digital market stabilizes.


You could be in for a long wait.
I'm on my third laptop, and I'm still waiting for that market to
stabilize. Obviously, I'm not putting off upgrading while I wait. :-)
I think it'll be a while before the digital camera market stabilizes.
And if you put off buying what you want while waiting, you'll miss out
on some terrific kit.


Not a very good example.
While a DSLR will still take the same pictures after 5 years, a PC will
not give you the same functionality after 5 years.

Oh yes it will.

A picture is a picture. Digital cameras will not be able to produce better
pictures that film cameras do. It is only a different, more accessible
medium. Both Canon and Nikon are at their first generation of consumer
level DSLRs.

Nope on 2nd sub £1000 and before that there was the d30 d60 and d10 so its
5th generation for canon.

They are expensive and still have some quirks. £489 aint expensive. I paid
more than that for my 50E

Give them another generation or two and the set of features, the size of
the sensor and its resolution will stabilize. There is a limit to what we
can see.

the more megapixels the bigger the final possible print size. The bigger
the final print size the more you will be able to see. As for most people
quote these obscene sizes as the superiority of film. Ha most customers
still consider a 7x5" print to be large. They still want a 7 megapixel
camera though.

In article , Paul Bielec wrote:
Larry wrote:

[ ... ]

I use a small Canon A60 when I don't want to bring my DRebel (hiking,
biking, skiing). It makes great 4x6 for a 2MP P&S camera.
When I looked at D70, it gave a rougher impression. I don't remember
exactly what it was, but there was something really cheap about it, the
battery or memory card maybe. Something that didn't fit in on a camera
in that price range.

Hmm ... I haven't noticed anything of that sort.

The battery is a specialized Li-ion battery which gives an
amazing number of shots per charge. (Well over 700 shots at the
medim/fine size JPEGs on a 1GB flash card, I've not filled a flash card
with RAW for a comparison -- but a large percentage of those shots used
the built-in flash at some distance.)

As for the Flash Card -- you buy your own choice for that, the
same with the other cameras. The Nikon kit (I have been told) does not
come with a Flash Card. My D70 body certainly did not. Thus, I was
able to pick my own choice in the size/cost/speed tradeoff. (I opted
for a 1GB 80X Lexar -- and got another one a week or so later. I've
only had to roll over to the second on a long weekend trip with a
wedding involved. (No -- I was not the pro, but I took a lot of shots
anyway. :-)

And I have been quite happy with my D70 -- but I already had
Nikon glass. Otherwise, the Cannon might have had a greater chance.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:57 GMT, Owamanga , wrote
in news
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:50:15 -0500, bob wrote:

T.N.T. wrote:

the D70's flash sync speed of 1/500s at
ISO200 vs 350D's 1/200s at ISO100 is just 1/3 stop different, not as
much an advantage that 1/500s vs 1/200s makes it out to be. That
makes it 16-15 for D70.

The point of faster flash synch is to have shorter exposure times:
1/500 will stop action better than 1/200.

It's true for better action stopping. But it must be a rare situation
when you need both fill flash and high speed action stopping. At least
Nikon seems to think so: the D2X only has 1/250s flash sync, but it has
ISO100. So the main point of 1/500s flash sync on the D70 is to
compensate for the high lowest ISO of 200, enabling it to use the same
aperture opening in fill flash as other cameras with 1/250s sync at ISO
100.

Not only that, but to still be able to use fill flash in bright
sunlight when faster shutter speeds are a necessity to maintain proper
exposure.

It's not a necessity because of the available lower ISO of 100 on the
other camera.

Looking at this purely in the sense of stops is just weird.

Not purely in stops, but 1/3 stop is meant you only have to close the
*aperture* down just 1/3 of a stop to get the same proper exposure. 1/3
stop also means not much of an advantage at all.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:35:25 GMT, Owamanga , wrote
in :

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:10:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

bob wrote:

T.N.T. wrote:

the D70's flash sync speed of 1/500s at
ISO200 vs 350D's 1/200s at ISO100 is just 1/3 stop different, not
as much an advantage that 1/500s vs 1/200s makes it out to be. That
makes it 16-15 for D70.

Thinking about this some more, you'd need twice the power output to
illuminate the same scene if you drop from ISO200 to ISO100,
effectively cutting your flash power in half, limiting ranges,
doubling recharge times etc. This just isn't a good comparison.

You seems to think the aperture always get stuck and can't be opened up
or ISO can't be changed to 200 or something.

snip

Flash photography is always 2 exposures, ambient and flash, at the
same time.

You missed the killer, the big one, the real reason for fast sync:

It lets you fill-flash in broad daylight, dark Churches or anywhere in
between.

You seems to miss the ISO setting aspect. For the same ISO, faster flash
sync is, of course, always better and always wanted in fill flash to
enable the use of wider aperture opening, which brings the main
desireable effect - shallower DoF. For a higher minimum ISO setting, a
proportionately higher flash sync is a "necessity" in order to get the
same aperture effect. The ability to freeze ambient light in fill flash
is a plus, but minor and in rare situations.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:19:25 -0600, John A Stovall wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:30:16 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote:


snipped
considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an
inferior lens on the front seems pointless.

Why bother buying one with a kit lens? In putting together my Canon
20D system. I just bought the body and then added the lens(es) I
wanted which would meet my needs.

Because the Body with the kit lense is a lot cheaper than the body plus
the cheapest lens you can buy seperatly. Assuming you don't have
limitless resources it's a good way to a get the camera and start taking
pictures while saving up for (and deciding) whatever lens you want next.

Dag

DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article , Paul Bielec wrote:

Larry wrote:


[ ... ]


I use a small Canon A60 when I don't want to bring my DRebel (hiking,
biking, skiing). It makes great 4x6 for a 2MP P&S camera.
When I looked at D70, it gave a rougher impression. I don't remember
exactly what it was, but there was something really cheap about it, the
battery or memory card maybe. Something that didn't fit in on a camera
in that price range.


Hmm ... I haven't noticed anything of that sort.

The battery is a specialized Li-ion battery which gives an
amazing number of shots per charge. (Well over 700 shots at the
medim/fine size JPEGs on a 1GB flash card, I've not filled a flash card
with RAW for a comparison -- but a large percentage of those shots used
the built-in flash at some distance.)

As for the Flash Card -- you buy your own choice for that, the
same with the other cameras. The Nikon kit (I have been told) does not
come with a Flash Card. My D70 body certainly did not. Thus, I was
able to pick my own choice in the size/cost/speed tradeoff. (I opted
for a 1GB 80X Lexar -- and got another one a week or so later. I've
only had to roll over to the second on a long weekend trip with a
wedding involved. (No -- I was not the pro, but I took a lot of shots
anyway. :-)

And I have been quite happy with my D70 -- but I already had
Nikon glass. Otherwise, the Cannon might have had a greater chance.

Enjoy,
DoN.

What I ment was the memory card or battery door.
"door" was missing in my post

ian lincoln wrote:

"Paul Bielec" wrote in message
...

Big Bill wrote:

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:28:35 -0500, Paul Bielec wrote:



Alice wrote:



http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml

Here is another, an amateur point of view.
The 300D was a real bargain when I bough it. The D70 was much more
expensive. Now the price dropped and it is definitively the best digital
camera for the price.
I don't own any expensive gear and I don't need it.
When I bought my 300D, I wanted a DSLR but I wasn't willing to spend
2000$ (Can) to buy one. The 300D and the used EOS 300, is an upgrade

from the Nikon F60 I used to have. I want to buy an Elan 7e/7ne


eventually. It is all I need.
Upgrading to 350D or 20D, for me, it would be a waste of money.
I'll upgrade in few years when the digital market stabilizes.


You could be in for a long wait.
I'm on my third laptop, and I'm still waiting for that market to
stabilize. Obviously, I'm not putting off upgrading while I wait. :-)
I think it'll be a while before the digital camera market stabilizes.
And if you put off buying what you want while waiting, you'll miss out
on some terrific kit.


Not a very good example.
While a DSLR will still take the same pictures after 5 years, a PC will
not give you the same functionality after 5 years.


Oh yes it will.


A picture is a picture. Digital cameras will not be able to produce better
pictures that film cameras do. It is only a different, more accessible
medium. Both Canon and Nikon are at their first generation of consumer
level DSLRs.


Nope on 2nd sub £1000 and before that there was the d30 d60 and d10 so its
5th generation for canon.

They are expensive and still have some quirks. £489 aint expensive. I paid
more than that for my 50E


Give them another generation or two and the set of features, the size of
the sensor and its resolution will stabilize. There is a limit to what we
can see.


the more megapixels the bigger the final possible print size. The bigger
the final print size the more you will be able to see. As for most people
quote these obscene sizes as the superiority of film. Ha most customers
still consider a 7x5" print to be large. They still want a 7 megapixel
camera though.



I rarely print bigger than 4x6. Even my 2MP A60 gives me that.
And they are expensive compared to the price of a film body even before
the price dropped.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:29:34 GMT, "T.N.T." wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:35:25 GMT, Owamanga , wrote
in :

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:10:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

bob wrote:

T.N.T. wrote:

the D70's flash sync speed of 1/500s at
ISO200 vs 350D's 1/200s at ISO100 is just 1/3 stop different, not
as much an advantage that 1/500s vs 1/200s makes it out to be. That
makes it 16-15 for D70.

Thinking about this some more, you'd need twice the power output to
illuminate the same scene if you drop from ISO200 to ISO100,
effectively cutting your flash power in half, limiting ranges,
doubling recharge times etc. This just isn't a good comparison.

You seems to think the aperture always get stuck and can't be opened up
or ISO can't be changed to 200 or something.

No, I'm just pointing out his comparison wasn't apples to apples. Yes,
you can always add 3 slave flashes into the equation to deal with
power issues, but this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, neither
is changing the aperture.

snip

Flash photography is always 2 exposures, ambient and flash, at the
same time.

You missed the killer, the big one, the real reason for fast sync:

It lets you fill-flash in broad daylight, dark Churches or anywhere in
between.

You seems to miss the ISO setting aspect.

?

For the same ISO, faster flash
sync is, of course, always better and always wanted in fill flash to
enable the use of wider aperture opening, which brings the main
desireable effect - shallower DoF. For a higher minimum ISO setting, a
proportionately higher flash sync is a "necessity" in order to get the
same aperture effect.

Agreed.

The ability to freeze ambient light in fill flash is a plus, but minor and
in rare situations.

Not sure what 'freezing ambient light' entails, but okay.

--
Owamanga!

On 9 Mar 2005 13:03:53 GMT, Dag wrote:

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:19:25 -0600, John A Stovall wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:30:16 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote:


snipped
considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an
inferior lens on the front seems pointless.

Why bother buying one with a kit lens? In putting together my Canon
20D system. I just bought the body and then added the lens(es) I
wanted which would meet my needs.

Because the Body with the kit lense is a lot cheaper than the body plus
the cheapest lens you can buy seperatly. Assuming you don't have
limitless resources it's a good way to a get the camera and start taking
pictures while saving up for (and deciding) whatever lens you want next.

Dag

The after rebate cost of the 18-70mm kit lens was $120. Why wouldn't
you buy it.

In article , Paul Bielec wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article , Paul Bielec wrote:

Larry wrote:

[ ... ]

When I looked at D70, it gave a rougher impression. I don't remember
exactly what it was, but there was something really cheap about it, the
battery or memory card maybe. Something that didn't fit in on a camera
in that price range.

[ ... ]

Hmm ... I haven't noticed anything of that sort.

[ ... ]

What I ment was the memory card or battery door.
"door" was missing in my post

O.K. Looking at mine, the Memory card door looks quite good,
and interestingly enough it has a rubber gasket to help seal out the
elements when it is closed. (I never noticed that before now, when your
article called my attention to it.) There is also a small rubber button
to catch the swing of the door when you pop it open -- perhaps because
of the possibility of the noise distracting people in certain
situations, though that would have to be quieter than the shutter.

As for the battery door -- it happens to be removable (without
tools), as long as you pull at the right angle, so it could be easily
replaced at need. Since it closes firmly flush with the bottom, I've
never had any problem with it.

The one thing which *I* wish had been a bit better was the
clip-on shield over the LCD display. I lost the first one, when it
(apparently) hooked on my belt as I was getting out of a car, and by the
time I noticed that it was missing, it was too late to find it. (I
tried -- ever looked for a transparent chip of plastic over highly
variable terrain? :-)

The replacement has been attached by a tether to the left-hand
strap bracket. (I did a couple of eye splices in some bright yellow
nylon string. :-) That has saved it from getting lost quite a few times
since. (I tend to wear the camera most of the time that I am outdoors
or even indoors away from the house.)

I've read complaints about the noise of the autofocus, which
seemed to be complaints about nothing to me, as I had the "28-105mm
f3.5-4.5 D" lens when I got the camera. I did not get the kit lens.

Now that I've added a 50mm f1.4 autofocus, I see where the
complaints come from. It produces significanly more noise than the
28-105mm does. Both are mechanically-coupled (from the camera body)
autofocus -- not ones with the built-in motor in the lens, which I have
not yet experienced.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---